https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113644 Permission granted under Rule 57F(2) could not protect the assessee from duty recovery where the goods were outside the notified Modvat scheme, because a permission contrary to the statutory framework creates no enforceable right and there is no estoppel against law. The article also notes that an alternative plea under Rule 56A had to be examined, since that defence could be raised at any stage and depended on factual verification of duty-free and duty-paid quantities, exclusion of imported inputs, and correlation between removed polyester yarn and exported or duty-paid texturised yarn. The matter therefore required fresh adjudication on those factual issues. en-us Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 May 2012 13:14:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113644 Permission granted under Rule 57F(2) could not protect the assessee from duty recovery where the goods were outside the notified Modvat scheme, because a permission contrary to the statutory framework creates no enforceable right and there is no estoppel against law. The article also notes that an alternative plea under Rule 56A had to be examined, since that defence could be raised at any stage and depended on factual verification of duty-free and duty-paid quantities, exclusion of imported inputs, and correlation between removed polyester yarn and exported or duty-paid texturised yarn. The matter therefore required fresh adjudication on those factual issues. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113644